Khan v Tomaszewski

Last updated: November 14, 2024

Order

Ordered by Ender Joseph,Tribunals Ontario  under Section 69, Residential Tenancies Act 2006

Order Date: September 3, 2024
*** Woodbine Avenue, Toronto, ON M4C4E5
Contested Dispute

Decision in favor of

Tenant

Ordered Amount

-

Notices Sent

Non-payment of rent (N4)Substantial Interference (N7)

Subsections of RTA Quoted

63(1)116(3)116(4)
ContentionModerate

Agree with the ruling?

Citation: Khan v Tomaszewski, 2024 ONLTB 63878

File Number: LTB-L-068034-23

Timeline

Hearing Date

Jun 2024

3 months

Order Date

Sep 3, 2024

Decision

Both the L1 and L2 applications were dismissed. The rent increase notice was found invalid, and there was insufficient evidence to prove substantial interference.

Unlock Order Content

Dispute

Landlord applied to terminate tenancy and evict Tenants for non-payment of rent and alleged substantial interference through noise disturbances and improper parking.

Unlock Order Content

Determinations

  • N4 notice invalid due to improper rent increase notice
  • No evidence of substantial noise interference
  • No proof of damage to residential premises
  • Tenant's meditation log contradicted noise allegations
  • Unlock Order Content

Landlord's Arguments

Arguments

Tenants use residential unit inconsistently with residential premises

Unlock Order Content

Actions and Evidence

Claimed tenants disturb office workers with music practice and video games

Unlock Order Content

Procedural Errors

Invalid rent increase notice, unsubstantiated noise complaints

Unlock Order Content

Considerations

Attempted retaliatory eviction after tenant's bylaw complaint

Unlock Order Content

Tenant's Arguments

Arguments

Landlord failed to provide evidence of noise complaints, requested proof which was not provided

Unlock Order Content

Actions and Evidence

Tenants complained to City Bylaw about unit issues, provided meditation log to counter noise allegations

Unlock Order Content

Need assistance from an expert?

Financial Details

Rent Arrears

$88

Similar Cases

Click to switch between order outcomes

Heubner v Dewe-Boucher

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 12, 2025
Cornwall

Cornwall tenant faces eviction for $11,391 in non-payment of rent.

Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Zetchaku v Hazelview Property Services Inc

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 5, 2025
Toronto

LTB dismisses tenant's maintenance complaint against Toronto landlord, finding reasonable response to issues.

ContentionLow

16127720 Canada Inc. v Stevens

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins

Landlord granted eviction order against tenant who caused damage and safety issues at residential complex.

Eviction Relief Granted
ContentionHigh

MM Nominee Corp. v Oba

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
February 21, 2025
North York

Landlord wins non-payment case, but tenant granted conditional relief from eviction to repay $4,589.97 in arrears.

Eviction Relief Granted
Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Heubner v Dewe-Boucher

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 12, 2025
Cornwall

Cornwall tenant faces eviction for $11,391 in non-payment of rent.

Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Zetchaku v Hazelview Property Services Inc

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
March 5, 2025
Toronto

LTB dismisses tenant's maintenance complaint against Toronto landlord, finding reasonable response to issues.

ContentionLow

16127720 Canada Inc. v Stevens

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins

Landlord granted eviction order against tenant who caused damage and safety issues at residential complex.

Eviction Relief Granted
ContentionHigh

MM Nominee Corp. v Oba

Contested Dispute
Landlord Wins
February 21, 2025
North York

Landlord wins non-payment case, but tenant granted conditional relief from eviction to repay $4,589.97 in arrears.

Eviction Relief Granted
Section 82 Issues Raised and Denied
ContentionModerate

Unlock More Similar Orders

Access our complete database of similar cases to make more informed decisions and better understand LTB rulings.

Compare outcomes of similar cases to assess your position

Analyze patterns in LTB decisions for your case type

Build stronger arguments with real case references

Share: